Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus. Marcius Coriolanus What feat did Coriolanus accomplish?

The story of Coriolanus is largely legendary. But since the ordinary story was accepted by later times as actual history, we will select the most important thing from it and then briefly add what, after eliminating everything legendary, can apparently be accepted as historical facts.

Prince Martius, who came from a noble patrician family, was already distinguished in his very young years by courage and bravery. It is said that he took part in the expulsion of Tarquinius and fought bravely at the Battle of Lake Retil. Here, in front of the dictator Postumius’s eyes, he defended with his shield one citizen who had fallen near him and hacked to pieces the attacking enemy. For this, the commander awarded him an oak wreath, because such a reward followed the law for anyone who covered his fellow citizen with a shield. From the moment he received this distinction, the ambitious young man began to try to live up to the expectations placed on him, and added feat to feat, added booty to booty; there was no battle from which he returned home without a wreath or decoration of honor. In the same year when Spurius Cassius concluded an alliance with the Patinae (493 BC), the Romans, under the leadership of the consul Postumius Cominius, launched a campaign against the Volscians from Antium, conquered the Latin cities of Longula and Polusca, which were at that time in the hands of the Volscians, and then camped in front of the city of Corioli. The Volscians from Antium came to the aid of the city and attacked the Romans, while on the other side a sortie was made by the inhabitants of Corioli. But Marcius, leading the detachment entrusted to him, threw them back into the city and himself invaded there after those who had fled. The flames that engulfed the burning houses, the cries of wives and children, made it known to the rest of the Roman army that Marcius had invaded the city; she followed him, occupied Corioli and robbed it, while Marcius with a detachment of volunteers immediately hurried to another part of the Roman army, which had come to battle with the Volscians from Antium. He appeared just at the moment when the battle was about to begin, and took a place here in front of everyone. The Romans owed their victory here too to his irresistible courage. As a reward for his exploits, he received from the consul a horse with magnificent harness and permission to choose for himself from the rich booty, which consisted of gold, horses and people, ten times more than what he would have had to divide into equal parts. But Marcius chose only one prisoner, to whom he immediately gave freedom. This act aroused universal approval, and the consul Cominius gave him the honorable name Coriolanus.

Until now we have only seen the good side of Marcius Coriolanus. But in private life he behaved extremely proudly and arrogantly, especially regarding the plebeians for whom he everywhere showed hatred and contempt. For his aristocratic pride it was unbearable to see that this rude crowd, created only for obedience, dared to rebel against oppression and retire to the Sacred Mountain force the patricians to establish the position of tribunes. In the year following the conquest of Corioli, he was a candidate for the post of consul. His military merits, it is true, entitled him to such honor, but his proud, harsh behavior during the election so alienated the people, who already hated and feared him, from him that the election did not take place. Coriolanus took this failure as a grave insult, and the patrician youth, who looked at him as their leader, tried to inflate his indignation even more. He wanted to take revenge on the people. Just this year a severe famine broke out, from which the poor class suffered severely ›yes. To alleviate the disaster, the Senate purchased grain from different parts of Italy, and one Sicilian tyrant, who was friendly to the Romans, sent them a large amount of wheat as a gift. The people hoped for a cheap sale of bread or even a free distribution of it. But when meetings began in the Senate on the method of releasing grain to the people, Coriolanus made a sharp speech, recalled the daring disobedience of the plebeians to the law and demanded that grain be sold only at the same high prices that existed for it until then; If, Coriolanus said, the plebeians want low prices, then let them renounce the rights they were forced to accept and agree to the abolition of the tribunician position. When Coriolanus’s speech became known to the people who found themselves before the curia, he became so enraged that he would certainly have killed the speaker upon leaving the curia if the tribunes had not demanded that he be held accountable in front of the plebeian community. The anger of the people subsided; each looked upon himself as the future judge of the life and death of his enemy. In the interval between this day and the day of the trial, the patricians used all means to change the mood of the people with threats, requests and promises, and they actually managed to win over a fairly significant part of the plebeians to the side of Coriolanus. Coriolanus again ruined the whole matter with his indomitable arrogance, ridicule and sarcastic speeches that he allowed himself regarding the tribunes and the court. Since he did not appear in person for the trial, a new decision was made to subject him to lifelong exile. Coriolanus went to the Volscians, uttering threats to society and full of gloomy thoughts of revenge. In the city of the Volscians, Antium, there lived a noble man, Tullius, who, thanks to his wealth and courage, enjoyed royal honor. Coriolanus knew that Tullius hated him more than all the other Romans, because they often measured their strength during the war. One evening the exile Marcius appeared at this man’s house and, unrecognized by anyone, with his head covered, silently sat down by the fireplace. Tullius, called by the servants, who were looking at the strange stranger with bewilderment, asked the latter who he was and why he had come. Then Marcius opened his face and extended his hand to the enemy of the Romans in a joint fight against the hated city. Tullius gladly showed hospitality to his recent enemy, and both began to consider means of again raising the Volscians to war with Rome, since the Volscians, weakened by several defeats and a pestilence, had not long before concluded a two-year truce with the Romans.

Tullius undertook to cause a resumption of the war through cunning. It was at this time that the Romans were preparing to celebrate the great games and invited their neighbors to this celebration. A large number of Volscians went to Rome, and Tullius was among them. But before the games began, Tullius, in accordance with the agreement with Coriolanus, went to the consuls and expressed suspicion that the Volscians intended to attack the Romans during the festival and set fire to the city. Frightened by this news, the consuls, through the medium of a herald, ordered all Volscians to clear the city before sunset. Indignant at this insulting order, the Volscians left Rome, and Tullius, having already left the city earlier and was waiting for his compatriots on the road, inflamed their anger to such an extent that soon the whole people began to urgently demand vengeance. Ambassadors were sent to Rome to demand the return of all the cities hitherto conquered by the Romans. This demand amounted to a declaration of war. The Romans answered: “If the Volscians are the first to draw their sword, the Romans will be the last to sheathe it.” The Volscians chose Tullius and Coriolanus as their leaders.

Tullius remained to guard the cities of the Volscians, and Coriolanus set out on a campaign against Rome and the Latin cities allied with it. First he approached the Roman colony of Circe and took it. In a short time, he conquered 12 Latin cities and stopped with his victorious army at the Cilia ditch, 5 thousand steps, or 5 Roman miles, from Rome. Rome saw itself in the most critical and helpless state; internal strife weakened all forces, and there was nothing to hope for help from the Latin cities. Attempts to gather an army remained unsuccessful, and at this time the soldiers of Marcius plundered and devastated the city gates; but they did not touch the lands belonging to the patricians, either because Marcius wanted to take out his hatred first on the plebeians, or because he wanted to further strengthen the hostile relations between the two classes. He achieved both goals; The plebeians suspected the patricians of an agreement with Coriolanus and refused to supply people to the army, so as not to ruin themselves by the treason of the patricians.

In such a plight, the Senate had no choice but to send an embassy to Coriolanus with a proposal for reconciliation and return to the fatherland. For this purpose, five senators were sent to the enemy camp. They were personal friends of Coriolanus and hoped for a warm welcome; but he received them proudly and sternly and responded to their meek, peace-loving speeches that he was here not on his own behalf, but as the leader of the Volscians; that there can be no talk of peace until the Romans return to the Volscians all the conquered lands with cities and grant them civil equality, which was given to the Latins. Coriolanus gave them 30 days to discuss this proposal. After this last one, the Romans sent a new embassy to ask for more lenient terms. It returned with the same failure as the first, receiving a final 10-day reprieve. Then the city priests tried to appease the cruel man; the pontifexes, flamens and ephors in festive attire went to the enemy camp, asked and begged Coriolanus to retreat from there and then begin negotiations with the Romans about the affairs of the Scavens; but Marcius did not deviate from his first decision. Upon the return of the priests, the Romans decided to calmly remain in the city, limit themselves to guarding the walls and wait for help only from time and some random miracle, because no one could come up with another means of salvation. Women moved in sad crowds from one temple to another and prayed to the gods to eliminate the great disaster. Among them was Valeria, sister of Poplicola, who provided such services to the state. On the last day of this reprieve, she, along with other noble women, lay in the dust before the altar of Jupiter Capitoline and prayed; suddenly a happy thought flashed in her head. She got up, went with the rest of the women to Coriolanus’ mother Veturia and his wife Volumnia and asked them to go to Coriolanus and beg him to turn away from the city of the storm. Veturia and Volumnia - the latter holding the hand of her two sons - moved to the camp at the head of noble Roman women. Their appearance inspired respectful compassion in the enemy. When Coriolanus heard that his mother, wife and children were among those approaching the camp, he rushed to meet them with open arms and hugged and kissed them with tears. The reproaches and pleas of his beloved mother, the silent crying of respectable women, the sight of kneeling children and his wife - all this finally crushed the harsh stubbornness of the vengeful man. “Mother,” he exclaimed, “what have you done to me! I obey you, you have defeated me; but I will never return to Rome again. Preserve the fatherland in my place, since you have made a choice between Rome and your son.” Then, after talking again privately with his mother and wife, he released them and, as soon as it was dawn, led his army on the return journey.

Among the Volscians, Coriolanus lived to a very old age and, as they say, often complained that for an old man exile was a great disaster. According to other, less reliable legends, the Volscians killed him in indignation that he had taken them away from Rome, which they already looked at as sure prey.

In gratitude to the women for saving the city, the Roman Senate decided to build a temple in honor of the goddess - the patroness of women (fortuna muliebris).

The stories of Roman historians about Coriolanus differ from each other in many points, so that from this circumstance, in addition to the whole nature of the stories, it should be concluded that these stories are drawn not from modern sources, but from legendary legends, inaccuracies and improbabilities discovered by new logic in the history of Coriolanus , we will mention only a few here. The conquest of the city of Corioli by the Romans is very doubtful, since the oldest tradition says nothing about the Roman campaign against the Volscians in that year. The dominion of the Volscians at that time did not extend to the area where Corioli was located, and this city is listed among the Latin cities in the treaty of Cassius, which was concluded in the same 493. Therefore, Coriolanus could not receive this nickname thanks to the feat during the capture of Corioli; Moreover, in the first centuries the public was not in the habit of receiving nicknames (nomina) after the names of conquered cities or won battles. Nicknames named after cities, but not given for successful military exploits, were often encountered in other cases; such, for example, are Collatinus, Camerinus, Medullinus, etc. Coriolanus was such a nickname, and on the basis of it they invented a feat for the person to whom it belonged, supposedly accomplished under Corioli. It is incredible that, given the national reverence of the peoples at that time, their aversion to everything foreign, Coriolanus, as a foreigner, could become the commander of the Volscians; it is incredible that they obeyed this stranger unquestioningly when he led them back from Rome. The indicated number of cities conquered during this short campaign seems very doubtful, since at that time a whole summer campaign was usually required to take at least one fortified city. It seems very likely that Niebuhr’s position is that Coriolanus, expelled by the Romans, was not the commander of the Volscians, but the leader of several detachments of the same expelled and fled Romans who strengthened their composition with adventurers greedy for prey - and that he and these warriors devastated Roman possessions and threatened even the capital, but retreated thanks to the prayers and tears of his mother. This seems to be the historical basis of the stories about Coriolanus. We have a similar example in the Sabine Appius Gerdonia, who in 460 BC, leading Roman exiles and slaves, attacked the Capitol and took possession of it. The legend did not indicate exactly what time Coriolanus fought at the head of his volunteers. But since, according to the entry in the spiritual books, the first sacrifice in the temple fortuna muliebris was made on December 1, 488. , and the temple of this goddess, according to legend, was founded in honor of the salvation of the city by women, then the retreat of Coriolanus from Rome was attributed to December 1 of the previous year. Niebuhr correctly found that the campaign of Coriolanus should be dated several decades later, to the time of the great war with the Volscians, when the Latin cities mentioned in the history of Coriolanus actually came under the power of the Volscians and Aequi and Rome itself was in danger. At this time, due to the fierce struggle of parties in Rome, the number of fugitives and exiles was, of course, very large. It may very well be that, under the leadership of Coriolanus, they acted together with the Volscians.

The years following the treaty concluded on the sacred mountain were difficult for Rome. The discord between the classes was not eliminated by the establishment of the tribunes of the people; on the contrary, it often intensified to the point of internecine war: the patricians wanted to limit the rights of the tribunes, or even abolish the tribunate altogether, and the plebeians wanted to strengthen its power; the tribunes put on trial those magistrates who ignored their protests, the plebeians condemned these dignitaries; sometimes the plebeians even refused to go on a campaign, or the tribunes forbade raising an army. Tradition says that many patricians left Rome for neighboring states; others entered into conspiracies with enemies, or sought help against the plebeians from the aristocrats of the Latin Union.

War with the Volscians and Coriolanus

It was natural that neighboring peoples, especially the warlike Volscians and Aequi, took advantage of these discords and attacked the Romans and their allies, the Latins and Hernics. The important coastal city of Antium, whose name is included in the treaty with the Carthaginians, among the Latin cities, fell under the rule of the Volscians; they also captured some other coastal cities. The Romans have gone. Finally, the war besieged the strongly fortified Volsian city of Corioli. Its citizens made a sortie, and the Volsian army went to the aid of the city. But, thanks to the courage of the young patrician Gaius Marcius, the Romans took possession of Corioli: having walked around the city, he entered the open gate on the opposite side and set fire to that edge of the city. After the capture of Corioli, the consul, at a meeting of the entire army, praised Marcius and gave him a horse in rich harness as a reward; and in memory of his feat he was given the nickname Coriolanus (“of Corioles”). The following year there was a famine in Rome. Given the hostile mood of the Volscians and the tyrant of Cumae, Aristodemus, there was nowhere in the neighborhood to buy bread; the famine intensified, and the disaster reached the point that Rome looked like a besieged city. Finally ships arrived with grain from Sicily. Marcius Coriolanus, irritated by the fact that he was not elected consul, suggested that the Senate put the grain in state stores and sell it at the high price that was before the arrival of the ships. He said that if the plebeians want to buy grain at a cheap price, then let them return their former rights to the patricians and agree to the abolition of the tribunate. Having learned about this, the plebeians were in terrible indignation; Coriolanus would have been killed if the tribunes had not reassured the plebeians with a promise to subject him to trial by the plebeian assembly of the tribes, as a person seeking to violate the treaty that the patricians had sworn to observe. Thanks to this, Coriolanus was left free until the day of trial. The patricians tried to soften the anger of the plebeians against him, decided to sell grain at a cheap price, reminded the plebeians of the brave feat of Coriolanus, asked to spare him; but he himself hindered the success of their requests with his arrogance: he behaved insolently towards the plebeians, spoke about them with offensive ridicule. When the day of judgment came, he did not appear in the assembly of the plebeians, was condemned and had to leave Rome. Burning with a desire for revenge, he went to Antium to the Volscian king Attius Tullius and persuaded him to resume the war with Rome, promising him his help. The desired pretext was found: Attius Tullius, by cunning, achieved that the consuls shamefully expelled the Volscians, who had come there to watch the festival, from Rome. The war began, the Volscians appointed Coriolanus as their commander-in-chief. He justified their trust: he won victory after victory, taking city after city. The Volscians took the city of Circe, in which Roman colonists were settled; took the Latin cities of Satrik, Longula, Poluska, Corioli, Mugilla; Lavinium, the sacred city, which the Latins and Romans considered their primitive homeland, also surrendered to the formidable commander; Having conquered all of Latium, Coriolanus from Peda went to Rome. He camped at the Cluilian moat, where the border of Roman possessions was, two hours' journey from Rome, and began to devastate Roman land. The position of the Romans was disastrous: they had no allies, and there was discord among themselves. The patricians blamed the plebeians for forcing Coriolanus to become an enemy of the fatherland; the plebeians blamed the patricians for helping Coriolanus and betraying their fatherland; Coriolanus' actions confirmed this suspicion: he ordered only the fields and rural dwellings of the plebeians to be devastated, and the possessions of the patricians to be spared. The Romans decided to cancel the verdict against Coriolanus and return all his rights; five senators friendly with him were sent to invite him to return. He said that he would stop the war only on the condition that the Romans give the Volscians all the land they had taken from them and recall their colonists from this area. All attempts by the Romans to persuade him to peace on less difficult terms were in vain. Priests and augurs went to the camp of Coriolanus in sacred vestments, but their requests were in vain. The day was approaching on which Coriolanus wanted to begin the attack. The mother of Coriolanus, the old woman Veturia, his wife Volumnia with his two children and the Roman matrons went in mourning clothes to the stern military leader of the enemies; their requests and tears touched his heart, and he agreed to retreat. He said, bursting into tears: “Mother, you chose Rome over your son; you won't see me again; let the Romans be grateful to you." He returned with the Volsian army to Antium; according to some news, he lived to a ripe old age, grieving over his sad fate of living as an exile; according to other news, Tullius, who was jealous of his influence, incited the Volscians against him, and he was killed by them. On the spot where Coriolanus, yielding to the requests of his mother, wife and Roman matrons, agreed to retreat from Rome, a temple of “female happiness” was built, in memory of the salvation of the homeland by women.

Analysis of the legend of Coriolanus

This is the legend of Coriolanus. New researchers have undeniably proven that the facts in it are embellished with fiction. There is no reason to doubt that during the times of fierce strife between the patricians and plebeians after the establishment of the tribunate, a proud patrician, whose name was Coriolanus, was forced by the offended plebeians to leave Rome: we have already said that there were many patricians then who left their homeland out of annoyance at their rights received by the plebeians. The story that this patrician with the enemy army reached a stone five miles from Rome and that the requests of the Roman women convinced him to retreat may very well have a historical basis. But his alliance with the Volscians, the rapid conquest of Latin cities and the voluntary retreat of the victorious Volscians - all this is so implausible that these details cannot be considered consistent with historical truth. The enterprising, vengeful exile Coriolanus attacked the Roman region, probably not as a Volscian commander, but as the leader of the Roman exiles and mercenary soldiers who had gathered to him; Probably this raid was made at a time when the Roman army went to the aid of the Latins against the Volscians and Aequi; due to the fact that Rome was left without an army, he could come close to the city, as 30 years later the Sabine Appius Gerdonius, with the help of another Roman patrician, Caeso Quinctius, occupied the Capitol with a detachment of exiles and slaves; The Romans drove Gerdonius out of there only after a hot battle with the assistance of the Tusculans who came to their aid. The number of Roman emigrants and exiles was large after the expulsion of Tarquin; it increased a lot during the strife between the patricians and the plebeians; therefore, it is very possible that these exiles and emigrants made an attempt to take possession of Rome when they found an enterprising leader. If Coriolanus had such a soft heart that at the decisive moment he hesitated and the attack failed, then the second enterprise of this kind was initially successful. Among the brave people with whom Gerdonius took possession of the Capitol may have been the children or grandchildren of those emigrants and exiles who, together with the Tarquinii, fought against the Romans at Regillus. If so, then they at least found a grave in their homeland.

Niebuhr's opinion on the legend of Coriolanus

According to Niebuhr, the story of the folk legend about the expulsion, revenge, and retreat of Coriolanus was attributed by chroniclers to a time 20 or 30 years earlier than the events on the basis of which this legend was compiled. If ever a Roman exile actually marched on Rome in alliance with the Volscians, then, according to Niebuhr, this could only have happened during the great war with the Volscians in 464 and the following years; in this war the Volscians actually captured almost all Latin cities, and the situation of Rome was desperate; Remembering these misfortunes, the Romans could console themselves with the thought that the Volscians had won victories under the leadership of a Roman. The reason that the history of Coriolanus was attributed by chroniclers to an earlier time was the fact that it mentions the temple of “female happiness” Fortuna muliebris: it was built around 489. But this temple, which stood at the fourth mile stone, had, as has now been proven, no relation to the campaign of Coriolanus. Niebuhr believes that if the Romans found it difficult to agree to any demand of Coriolanus, then they rejected not the demand for the return of the Volscian cities conquered before - they actually returned these lands after 30 years - but Coriolanus’ demand that civil rights be returned to his comrades , among whom were criminals, escaped debtors, robbers and all sorts of desperate people who became violent villains in exile. Niebuhr says: “After the conquest by foreigners, the greatest misfortune for the free city was the victorious return of the exiles, who demanded that the confiscated property be given to them. Having lived for many years in the poverty of exile, almost all of them, of course, became robbers.”

.
On December 6, 2013, at 19.30 in London, the premiere of the play “Coriolanus” took place with the participation of Tom Hiddleston and Mark Gatiss... I want to go to London again... (in the sense that I wasn’t there, I just want to again)...

In fact, this is a hyperbole. I feel good at home, and on the sofa in the film club it’s also fine, since I was able to watch the play on a large movie screen with close-ups and Russian subtitles.

Since the play is not very well promoted, and I don’t remember any of its famous productions, then for those who are like me, poorly informed, I offer a brief summary. Connoisseurs may miss it.

The Tragedy of Coriolanus

In a nutshell: When the Volscian commander decides to attack Rome, the city calls on its hero and defender, Caius Marcius, for help. To thwart the enemy's plans, Caius Martius goes on a military campaign. In the battle with the enemy, he wins and receives the nickname Coriolanus after the name of the city he conquered. However, after the battle, Coriolanus discovers that he still has ill-wishers - and this time in Rome.

Ancient Rome, the time of the formation of the institution of tribunes. The plebeians are outraged by the actions of the patricians, who hoard grain while the entire people are in poverty. Patrician Menenius tells them about the stomach, which is responsible for the entire body, and the patricians distribute grain to the townspeople. Patrician General Caius Marcius announces the decision of the Senate - the plebeians can elect five tribunes who will represent their interests in the city.

A messenger appears with news of the decision of the Volscian tribe to go to war against Rome. Some of the Roman commanders under the command of Cominius go to battle with the tribe led by Aufidius, and the rest, under the leadership of Marcius and Lartius, besiege the city of Corioles. During the siege, Marcius is lured into the city and blocked there, but he manages to open the city gates and the Romans capture Corioles. The wounded Marcius hurries to the battlefield and wins again. For his valor and bravery during the siege of the city, he is given the name Coriolanus.

To become consul, a proud and arrogant patrician appears before the people in the market square in Rome, but nothing works out for him. The tribunes Brutus and Sicinius fear that Coriolanus, having become consul, will take away their positions, and persuade the plebeians to withdraw their votes. Coriolanus scolds the tribunes. Yielding to persuasion, his mother Volumnia also goes to the city square to make peace with the plebeians. The plebeians and patricians oppose Coriolanus, and he has to voluntarily leave Rome, having first said goodbye to his wife Virgilia.

Coriolanus finds his former enemy Aufidius and marches with him against Rome. The army under the command of Coriolanus finds itself under the walls of the Eternal City. Coriolanus's former friend Cominius leaves the city and tries in vain to persuade him to leave. Changes are also not listened to.

Suddenly Coriolanus' mother, his wife and son appear. Volumnia falls to her knees before him and asks for peace, realizing that this will mean only one thing: death for her son. Coriolanus agrees to sign a peace treaty. In his hometown of Antia, Aufidius calls Coriolanus a traitor and a weakling. The indignant people stab him to death.

It is well known that the British take the work of William Shakespeare very seriously. We studied it, one might say, inside and out.

Pay attention to the year it dates from. This is an important point that must be taken into account. Why, almost immediately after a victorious war, is a work about the tragedy of the victorious commander, who knew the bitterness of disappointment from the ingratitude of his citizens, being considered? Who then betrays them and fights on the side of the enemies, but at the critical moment of the attack, is unable to destroy Rome and deliberately chooses his own death.

Why study such a “role of personality in history” in 1947? And there I highlighted in bold the points that were most interesting to me. I was especially impressed by the escapade about the military. Again, do not forget about the time when this was said.

Something strange is happening with Coriolanus. The play is adored by critics, the public, at least in English-speaking countries, greets it rather coolly, and at the same time it is one of the most popular Shakespearean dramas in France. For example, Mr. Henry Norman Hudson, one of the dullest critics, says that in this play we see Shakespeare in the prime of his creative powers. Middleton Murry considers Coriolanus "a much deeper drama of Shakespeare than King Lear." Thomas Eliot writes that "Coriolanus may not be as 'interesting' as Hamlet, but, along with Antony and "Cleopatra', this play is Shakespeare's greatest creative success." William Hazlitt calls Coriolanus a great political play and argues that anyone who has studied it "need not trouble himself to study Burke's 'Thoughts', Pen's 'Rights of Man', or the records of the debates of both Houses of Parliament with the times of the Great French or our own revolution."

The play lends itself to dramatization better than most of Shakespeare's mature tragedies. The roles of Hamlet and Iago, for the most part, are not suitable for embodiment on stage, and King Lear does not benefit from this. Thus, among the tragedies of the mature period, only Macbeth and Julius Caesar remain, but in Julius Caesar the aesthetic interest is not concentrated on one hero. "Coriolanus" revolves around one character, the play is well constructed and does not go beyond the actor's capabilities. Shakespeare had to make some sacrifices. The characters are not as grippingly interesting as Hamlet or Iago. Poetry is more restrained, it has less shine. Apart from Virgilia, who is mostly silent, there are essentially no positive characters in the play. All this does not mean that the play is unworthy of attention. The language in it is unusually elegant, although restrained. There are some untranslatable lines in Coriolanus, but if we listen to some of the verses, we will understand why this play is easier to translate into French than most of Shakespeare's dramas, and why the French are passionate about it. An example is the exclamation of Coriolanus when, saying goodbye, he hugs Virgilia: “Your kiss, / Like vengeance, sweet, like exile, long!” (v.3). Another example is the beautiful couplet that Volumnia utters, describing the furious power of the fighting Coriolanus:

The spirit of death is embodied in his hand:

He waved it a little - and the enemy was struck down.

Act i, scene 1.

The play's rhetorical style is more developed than that of Julius Caesar, and it lends itself better to translation than Antony and Cleopatra.

“Coriolanus” is a very “vocal” play. Even the private lives of the characters are open to the public eye. Coriolanus has more noise, more formal music, and less chamber music than any other Shakespeare play. In the first act alone we hear: “a crowd of rioting townspeople” as the curtain rises and “screams from behind the stage” (i.i); a little later, drums are beating “under the walls of Coriol”, “the trumpets are sounding for negotiations,” but now “drums are beating in the city,” “the sound of battle can be heard” and “the sound of battle continues” (i. 4); in scene five - “in the distance the sound of an ongoing battle” and the call of a trumpet; in the sixth - “Screams. The warriors, shaking their swords and throwing their helmets into the air, pick Marcius up in their arms”; in the eighth - “the noise of battle”; in the ninth scene of the first act - “The Sound of Battle. They sound the all-clear”, “the lingering sound of trumpets. Everyone shouts: “Marcius! Marcius!" and again - "pipes and drums." Finally, the last scene of the first act is preceded by the sound of “trumpets and horns” (1.10). Throughout the entire play we hear fanfares and trumpets, the noise of troops and the clanking of swords, exclamations “behind the stage” and the screams of the rebellious crowd. In addition to the thunder of battle and the signals announcing the start of negotiations, solemn music is heard in the house of Aufidius during the feast (IV. 5). The play is crowned with a “funeral march” (v. b), as in the finale of Hamlet and King Lear. The private life of the characters is not accompanied by music: for example, there is no melody that could be identified with Virgilia. The characters in Coriolanus cannot distinguish notes. The music in the play is associated only with social events and is not perceived as art.

It is incorrect to believe that the main theme of Coriolanus is the class struggle between patricians and plebeians, in which Shakespeare is on the side of the aristocrats. The play could well have been devoted to this subject, since motifs of class struggle are present in North's translation of Plutarch's Life of Coriolanus, which served as the source of Shakespeare's tragedy. In Plutarch North, social clashes occur in both Antium and Rome, and Coriolanus seeks an alliance with Aufidius in part to save the aristocrats. The North translation of Plutarch says that in the campaign against Rome:

<… >Marcius [Coriolanus], devastating everything, sparing nothing, strictly forbade touching their [patricians'] estates, did not allow them to be harmed or take anything from them .

However, Shakespeare makes no mention of this tactic and makes it clear that Coriolanus had no particular sympathy for the patricians. Towards the end of the play, Cominius tells Menenius and the tribunes, Sicinius and Brutus, that while pleading with Coriolanus not to burn Rome:

I asked him to have pity on his friends.

He objected that he had no time

sort through the rotten chaff,

Looking for two or three grains,

Why is there a stinking pile of trash for them?

Not burning it is ridiculous.

Act v, scene 1.

The main contradiction in the play is not between aristocrats and plebeians, but between the individual and the masses, between Coriolanus and the crowd. Somewhere in the middle are Brutus and Sicinius, of the tribunes, and Menenius and Cominius, of the patricians. The play explores, among other things, the concepts of society and community. I have already spoken about these latter in my lecture on Julius Caesar. Society is unstable in its functions, which are subject to change, and in its constituent personalities, when they cease to correspond to their position and need to be replaced. Society is threatened by an individual who, due to exceptional talents, demands for himself excessive powers, greater than society can provide. Society itself poses a danger when it strives to fulfill its functions even after the need for this has ceased - for example, the army in peacetime. In the family (and every family combines the features of society and community), the danger comes from a mother like Volumnia, who continues to treat her grown-up son as a child.

A community that should be defined in terms of the desires common to its members is threatened by racial or class exclusivity - it blocks the way into the community for gifted people who share common desires. For a community, those who do not share its desires are also dangerous - for example, a crowd, because the people who form a crowd do not have their own “I” and do not experience defined, but only changeable desires; the community may be threatened by an individual who is unable to say “we” and who demands a special place for himself. Communities are based on the unifying consciousness of love or, in the negative and simpler case, on fear. Notice how the servants of Aufidius blaspheme the world:

First servant

Yes, and I will say: war is better than peace, just as day is better than night. During the war you live cheerfully: now you have a new rumor, now you have new news. And the world is like hibernation or paralysis: boring, empty, dreary. In peacetime, more illegitimate children are born than people die in war.

Second servant

That's for sure. Of course, in war sometimes other people's wives are raped; But in times of peace, wives decorate their husbands with horns.

First servant

Right. That's why people hate each other.

Third servant

And why all? Because in peacetime they don’t need each other that much. Is it war? I hope the Romans will soon be worth no more than the Volscians.

Act IV, scene 5.

Of course, in Coriolanus there is a conflict between the plebeians and the patricians. One of the townspeople directly accuses the patricians:

Those who care about us? No matter how it is! They never cared about us. Their barns are bursting with bread, and they starve us and pass laws against usury to benefit the usurers. Every day they repeal some good law that is not to the taste of the rich; every day they invent new edicts to squeeze and twist the poor. If the war does not devour us, they will do it themselves; that's how they love us.

Act I, scene 1.

What does Coriolanus accuse the crowd of? Plebeians refuse to participate in the wars of the Roman Republic; the “ignorant voice of the majority” demands the privileges of power for itself - the crowd longs to “lick the sweet poison” without learning to control its own passions (II.1). As Shakespeare shows, it is appetite and passion, not desire, that unites the mob. During the battle, the plebeians flee, refusing to follow Coriolanus. He enters the walls of Coriol alone. They maraud, overcome by fear and greed, and are easily aroused by passionate speech. They rejoice and, “shaking their swords and throwing their helmets into the air,” greet the triumph of Coriolanus (i. b), but their attitude towards him quickly changes when the tribunes encourage them to go to the Capitol and repent of the election of Coriolanus as consul (i. h). “We are going to the Capitol,” Sicinius says to Brutus:

Until the plebs poured in there like a wave.

Let the riot we incited

Will appear (this is partly the case)

Like the work of the people themselves.

Act II, scene 3.

The same change of opinion is skillfully shown in Antium, in the scene where the servants of Aufidius change their attitude towards Coriolanus. Not knowing him, they treat him like a beggar. After they learn his name and are embraced by Aufidius, they declare that they recognized him as an extraordinary person from the very beginning:

Honestly, I wanted to hit him with a stick, but, fortunately, I realized that he was not what he seemed to be from his clothes.<… >And I barely looked at his face and immediately realized that this was not a simple matter. There is something in his face... how to put it...

Act IV, scene s.

For the crowd, the present moment is absolute. The crowd has no memory. When I was in Germany two years ago, ordinary people told me: “I was always against Hitler, I was forced...”, etc. This is not a lie in the usual sense. They say this not with the intention of deception. After everything that had happened, all that remained in the horrifying ruins was a sense of the present; people have lost the ability to remember. Events have robbed them of their memory. Let us not think that such behavior is characteristic only of Germans. Most of us, through carelessness, run the risk of blending into the crowd. This has nothing to do with our class affiliation.

When Coriolanus returns threatening Rome with destruction, the Roman crowd shows signs of repentance for their recent efforts to drive him out:

First Citizen

I myself

Having said: “Expel,” he added: “It’s a pity.”

Second Citizen

Me too.

Third Citizen

Me too, of course. To tell the truth, we weren’t the only ones who said that. After all, we thought to make it better for everyone, and although we agreed to expel him, in our hearts we disagreed with this.

First Citizen

May the gods have mercy on us! Let's go home, neighbors. We shouldn’t have expelled him - I’ve always said that.

Second Citizen

We all said the same thing. Let's go quickly.

Act IV, scene 6.

Soon after this, the messenger reports that the crowd attacked the tribunes, grabbed Brutus and dragged him through the streets:

Swearing that unless the Romans give us mercy, he will be torn to pieces.

Act v, scene 4.

In the next scene, in Antium, a crowd of Volscians greets Coriolanus with “thunder of greetings,” but within a few minutes they shout: “Tear him to pieces!” (v. b). The crowd is each of us when we cease to be part of a community endowed with purpose, or in a community endowed with passions or desires.

The stands took a lot of heat from the critics. Politics is a difficult psychological test, and there is no reason to believe that democratic politicians are better than aristocratic politicians - the question is not even asked. The tribunes are aware that Coriolanus threatens their power and their supporters, and therefore it is natural that they enter into a fight with him. Their intrigues against him are not a pleasant sight, but this is the underside of politics. There are a lot of lies in politics. Volumnia and Menenius, for their part, are trying to convince Coriolanus to mislead the people by pretending to be humble - that is, to show the cunning that he resorts to in war. Volumnia advises him:

you should talk

With the people, but not in the way you would like

Not as an angry heart tells you,

And with the help of empty, cold words,

Which, in order to better hide the thought,

Language gives birth to bastard children.

Believe me, my son, that this is not dishonorable,

How to take a city with a word of exhortation,

Instead of trying to win

A risky bloody siege.

Act III, scene 2.

Patricians can be distinguished from tribunes - they are distinguished by their sense of self-esteem. Menenius is loved by the people - partly because he does not hold back his emotions. Parts of the whole must be disciplined and restrained - Change is controlled by temperament. Still, he shows aristocratic pride when he unsuccessfully asks Coriolanus to spare Rome and endures the mockery of his guards. “Whoever decided to lay hands on himself,” he says, “will not be afraid of murderers. Let your leader do his dirty work” (v. 2). Coriolanus behaves with the same patrician dignity - saying goodbye to his family and consoling loved ones on the eve of exile.

For what?

When I disappear, I will be appreciated.

Mother, take heart. After all, you said

What, let Hercules be your husband,

She would have accomplished six feats herself,

To make his work easier.

Act IV, scene 1.

Wife and mother, my beloved,

And you, friends of the purest, best quality,

Let's go. As soon as I leave the gate,

Say: “Good morning!” - and smile.

Please, let's go. While I'm trampling the ground,

They will always come to you

News about me, but never

They won’t tell you that Marcius has become different,

The earlier it was.

Act IV, scene 1.

Coriolanus is subjected to numerous attacks in the play. In the first scene, in a conversation between two townspeople about his merits and demerits, the first townsman speaks of Coriolanus’ military merits in the following way: “Let the soft-hearted simpletons think that he tried for the fatherland. In fact, he did this to please his mother; well, partly for the sake of his arrogance, and he has no less of it than fame” (I.1). In a conversation between two ministers, one of them says: “And asking for the enmity and anger of the people is no better than flattering those you hate so that they love you” (II. 2). Tribune Brutus claims that Coriolanus agreed to march under the command of Cominius because:

More faithful and easier glory,

Which he yearns for, even though he is kind to her,

Save and increase by borrowing

Second place in the army. After all, for a mistake

The commander will always be responsible.

Perform miracles, and then he will howl

Hula the weasel: “Oh, if only

Our Marcius was in charge!”

Act I, scene 1.

Aufidius, having accepted Coriolanus as an ally, says:

He is with me too

Haughtier than I expected when I first

We hugged.

Act IV, scene 7.

A little later, Aufidius offers his explanation for the expulsion of Coriolanus:

Perhaps it was pride that was to blame

Which spoils us on days of success,

Or a temper that gets in the way

Use the chain of luck wisely,

Or what was given to him from birth

Inherent inflexibility and perseverance,

Because of which on the Senate benches

He did not take off his helmet and remained

In days of peace he is as formidable as in battle.

Of these properties, any (has

He is all of them, although not to the fullest)

Enough to bring upon yourself

Expulsion and hatred of the people.

Act IV, scene 7.

In Rome, Coriolanus does not want to appear before the people, show his wounds and accept praise. “Fathers, forgive me,” he addresses Cominius and the patricians:

It’s better for me to heal my wounds than to listen

About how I received them.

I'll soon bask in the sun,

Scratching my head to the sounds

Combat alarms rather than idly listening

Words of praise for my insignificant deeds.

Act II scene 2.

He says to the townspeople with even greater contempt: “Of my own free will, I would never beg for alms from a beggar” (II. 3). In exile, however, his behavior changes somewhat - he begins to like honors and praise. Cominius reports that he sits “all gilded” (v. 1), and Menenius, after visiting the Volscian camp, says: “He sits in a canopied chair, like a statue of Alexander. Before he has time to give the order, it has already been carried out. Give him immortality and a throne in heaven - and there will be a real god” (v. 4).

Using Coriolanus as an example, it is easiest to see the difference between ancient tragedy and Shakespearean drama. Coriolanus resembles an ancient tragedy, but this is a false impression, which partly explains the success of the play in France. The behavior of Coriolanus can be perceived as a manifestation of the Greek hybris. But that's not true. Coriolanus has many virtues. He has excellent self-control and performs miracles of courage, he is chaste, not greedy and, in essence, does not strive for power over others, which ultimately leads to his death.

No, it's better

To serve him [Rome] in your own way than to rule

They do it the way the mob wants.

Act II, scene 1.

His two shortcomings are the thirst for primacy and the thirst for approval, exceptional, unprecedented approval. Why does he rebel against the need to wage political struggle? Because the request for recognition of his merits suggests that the consulate is given to Coriolanus not for his exploits, but for his eloquence and exposed wounds:

Should I show off in front of the crowd? “They say,

I did this and that” - and don’t hide it,

But to expose healed scars,

Did I get wounds?..

Act II, scene 2.

Coriolanus hates the crowd because it is fickle and gives honor to those who do not deserve approval or deserve it less than himself:

You are full

Enmity towards those who have won glory through friendship.

Your desires are the whims of the patient:

What you can’t do, you are drawn to.

Whoever looks for support in you floats,

Lead fin attached, or chops

Reed oak. It's crazy to believe in you

Changing opinions every minute,

Exalting those who are hated

Was you yesterday, and vilifying

Former favorites!

Act I, scene i.

If Coriolanus's only goal had been to gain laurels, he would not have agreed to the consulate and would not have spared Rome for the sake of Volumnia. If he had only sought approval, he would not have objected to the custom of showing his wounds to the people and would not have entered into an alliance with Aufidius. Coriolanus is not reliable. His devotion is not absolute.

The army is not a society that exists on its own. For an army to operate, it needs an enemy. There is a strange connection between military leaders and ordinary soldiers (like fighter pilots) of opposing armies. They understand and get along with each other much better than with their own civilians; Depicting the mutual respect of the warriors, Shakespeare resorts to erotic images. Coriolanus says to Cominius:

Let me hug you as joyfully and tightly as I once hugged the bride on the wedding evening, When the candles were lit over the wedding bed.

Act I, scene 6.

Aufidius, receiving Coriolanus at Antium, uses similar metaphors in a long welcoming speech:

Listen,

I loved a girl, my bride,

And hardly anyone in the world sighed

As sincerely as I do for her; but even

At that moment when my chosen one

For the first time she stepped through my threshold,

My heart could not dance more joyfully,

What, O high spirit, at our meeting!

Know, Mars, we have secretly gathered an army here,

And I was thinking about trying again

To deprive you of your shield and hand together -

Or lose your own hand.

Since I was defeated by you

In the twelfth match in a row,

Not a night went by without me dreaming

I saw our contractions in a dream,

How you and I, squeezing each other's throats,

They rolled on the ground, tore off their helmets, -

And I woke up exhausted.

Act IV, scene 5.

In Troilus and Cressida, Achilles seems to say about Hector:

Like a woman, I burn with desire

To see Hector in peaceful clothes,

Talk to him and take a look

Troilus and Cressida, Act III, Scene 3.

Coriolanus could have become a patrician leader or a great commander if not for his desire for perfection; he could have remained a valiant, lonely hero, for better or for worse, if he had not been bound to others by a passion for unconditional, exclusive approval. He is completely at the mercy of the words addressed to him, and each of the characters in the play knows how to influence him. Brutus says to Sicinius:

Try to piss him off right away.

He is used to everywhere, including in disputes,

To be first. If you make him angry,

He will completely forget caution

And he will tell us everything that is in his heart

Heavy. And there's enough of it there,

To break Marcia's spine.

Act III, scene 3.

Sicinius follows Brutus's advice, calling Coriolanus a "traitor to the people" (sh. h), and, as expected, Coriolanus is furious at the word "traitor." At the end of the play, Aufidius makes a sarcastic comment to Coriolanus in front of a crowd of Volscians, calling him a “boy.” The scene is repeated - Coriolanus is immediately seized with rage:

Boy! Lying dog!

If your chronicles write the truth,

Then you will read there that in Corioli

I invaded like an eagle into a dovecote,

Drive your squads before you.

I did it alone. Boy!

Act v, scene 6.

In two critically important episodes that mirror each other, Volumnia forces Coriolanus to do as she pleases. In the first episode she asks him to be kind to the people, in the second she begs him to spare Rome. In each case, she initially tries to argue with her son. When her arguments prove in vain, she begins to scold him and threatens to deprive him of his mother's love - and this helps. In the first episode she tells him:

My dear son, you said that valor

You have been filled with my praises.

I ask you, since you want to hear them again:

Play a role you didn't play.

Coriolanus answers:

Let it be so. Farewell, my proud spirit!

Let the soul of a whore live in me!

Rolling drums will become a pipe

Squeaky, like the falsetto of an eunuch, and weak,

Like a nanny singing over a sleepy baby!

Let the servile smile twist

My lips; let the tears fade away

My gaze of a punished schoolboy.

Act III, scene 2.

In response to his protests - “I won’t do this” - Volumnia moves away from him:

As you wish!

You sucked up courage with my milk,

But you gained pride yourself.

He immediately concedes:

Well, that's enough

Scold me. Take comfort, mother. I `ll exit

To the market square and love,

Like a jester, making faces, I will beg from the plebs

And I will return, having stolen his hearts,

The idol of Roman shopkeepers.

See - I'm leaving.

Act III, scene 2.

Volumnia adheres to the same tactics in the last scene, where she, with her daughter-in-law and grandson, begs Coriolanus to spare Rome. She says that his reputation will be forever tarnished in the chronicles, in which they will write: “He was great, but all his deeds / The last of them brought to nothing” (v. 3). Coriolanus is adamant, and she first kneels before him, and then gets up in anger and turns away from him with a gesture of physical disgust:

This person

Born from a Volsk mother,

His wife is probably in Corioli,

And my grandson looks like him by chance. -

Why don't you drive us away? I'll keep quiet

Until our city is engulfed in flames,

And then I’ll talk.

Act V, scene 3.

After this speech, according to the stage directions, Coriolanus, depressed and defeated, “takes her hand and sits there, silent” (v. 3). Coriolanus everywhere and always needs to feel like an only child - in his relationship with his mother and with people.

The character of Volumnia raises the question that perhaps every man who has achieved much in life had a domineering and demanding mother (a successful father is bad for him), and it is equally important that the hero's mother die early. Mothers should leave on time so that their sons have the opportunity to develop their own principles. A strong mother tends to perceive her son as an extension of her own self. Volumnia seeks power through a proxy, and it is she, not Coriolanus, who wants him to become consul - a position for which he is not qualified.

The play gives a frightening image of the young son of Coriolanus, who is “more drawn to look at the sword and listen to the drum than to study” (I.3). His aunt Valeria tells how the child tortured the butterfly:

He was chasing a golden butterfly: he would catch it, then let it go, and then chase it again; catches and releases again. And one time he fell and got angry - whether because of this or because of something else, I don’t know; but he just clenched his teeth - just like that! - and tore the butterfly apart. Oh, you should have seen how he tore it!

Act I, scene 3.

“Just like my father when he flares up!” (I.3) - Volumnia responds approvingly.

The true hero of the play is not Coriolanus, but Volumnia. The thirst for primacy and unconditional, complete recognition makes him completely dependent on the crowd - more than any other character. That's why he hates crowds. He is afraid that the plebeians will change their minds.

Notes:

16 The New School of Social Science, where Auden lectured on Shakespeare in 1946–1947, is located in New York's Greenwich Village on the island of Manhattan.

156 See T. S. Eliot, The Sacred Forest (Selected Essays).

158 Plutarch, Gaius Marcius Coriolanus, xxvu. Translation by V. A. Alekseev.

159 Translation by T. G. Gnedich.

160 This remark is not in the quoted Russian translation of Coriolanus.

Okay, what happened, happened. Yes, and this happened a very long time ago, in ancient Rome, so ancient that even for Plutarch that Cariolanus was a semi-legendary person.

An English lecturer spoke about Coriolanus in 1947. And here P.E. Todorovsky spoke about our post-war army in 1992. For what? He’s his own film “Anchor, more Anchor!” He filmed it after “Intergirl” in 1989. and “War Field Novel” 1983.

And why did I become attached to P.E. Todorovsky? And, simply, I.A. Dedyukhova had a webinar about his son V.P. Todorovsky, so I wanted to clarify how far the cherry has rolled from the apple tree. …"Nevermind!" (With)

Let's start with the title of the film. This is a clear reference to our artistic classics.

In 1851-1852, the famous Russian artist Fedotov painted the last painting he completed, entitled “Anchor, more, Anchor.” The picture was not entirely clear and seemed blurry, just like the soldier's life depicted in it. A dark room, illuminated by the light of a candle and the moon, which penetrates through a small window, a bed, a towel and a soldier’s bowler hat on the wall, this is its wretched interior.

Outside the window there is a cold wind and snow, it is winter there, the room is warm and good, but, perhaps, as cold as in the yard in the heart of a person who is lying on the bed. Most likely, this is a soldier stationed in a winter quarters in a peasant hut. He is an officer because he lives alone in the room, and also because he has a dog, the game with which is depicted in the picture. Away from his comrades, from the hustle and bustle of social life, the soldier is bored, he has nothing to occupy himself with, he doesn’t read books, he doesn’t want to sleep, and the frost outside the window prevents him from walking in the fresh air. This room became the meaning of his life for many months, turned into his whole life, and now he simply doesn’t know what else to do.

The poodle dog happily jumps over the stick, and the person lying on the bed repeats the same movement over and over again, forcing the dog to play again and again. And it’s clear that the dog, like the man, is tired, but this is the only thing left for them to somehow have fun on a winter evening. Therefore, the person invariably repeats the words: “Ankor, more, Ankor,” which literally translated from French means: “More, more, more,” with this he forces the dog to act, but nothing changes, since they have been playing like this for a whole evenings.

The picture requires a long time to comprehend and therefore is difficult for visual perception, but after looking at it better everything becomes clear and understandable, so you shouldn’t immediately move away from the picture, you need to stop, think and understand.

In my opinion, the mood of this picture in some way echoes the story about the personal story of the author of the film with the same name. Judge for yourself:

I developed such a talent for composing melodies. When I was very little, I took 5 rubles out of my father’s pocket, went to the market and bought myself a balalaika, and learned to play it. Then at the front I had an orderly who, already in Germany, said: “Comrade Lieutenant, you walk around and whistle something all the time, but I found an accordion.” And he pulls out a 120-bass accordion from the cart. I was the commandant of a small German town, and you know what I did there? I sat and learned to play the accordion from morning to evening. I’m glad I learned “The girl escorted me to the position...”, learned the right hand, then started looking for the bass. Then I started putting it all together. My job as commandant ended with me being quickly removed because I only played the accordion. ()

It turns out that in a small German town, immediately after the most monstrous war in the history of mankind, the commandant had nothing to do... Perhaps because of his youth...

But here is a film by a completely mature person who remembered that very youth. Sochi.

), having agreed with his wife Anya (Elena Yakovleva). Young lieutenant Volodya Poletaev falls in love with a beautiful nurse. Soon the colonel finds out about this. (Wikipedia)

A film about love. About a lieutenant who fell in love with the young beautiful wife of a colonel. The Colonel lives between a rock and a hard place; he has two wives - an old one, from the pre-war years, and a young one, whom he met at the front and with whom he fell madly in love.

The film, shot in retro style, takes place in the early post-war years. A film about the life and morals of a military town, where everything is in plain sight: family squabbles, love, death, betrayal, human meanness and cowardice. This is a film about people who have just won a war.
By entrusting supporting roles to magnificent actors, Todorovsky expanded and deepened the living space of his film. The characters of S. Nikonenko, V. Ilyin, E. Yakovleva, L. Gnilova, L. Malevannaya, A. Ilyin - on the screen in the faces of all the diversity of the generation of winners.
Sensual energy permeates the film, as well as lyrical, social-critical, dramatic energy. The living fabric of life is always multi-genre.

...I was making a film about love. About a lieutenant who fell in love with the young beautiful wife of a colonel. The Colonel lives between a rock and a hard place; he has two wives - an old one, from the pre-war years, and a young one, whom he met at the front and with whom he fell madly in love. And remorse, and painful doubts, and sidelong glances from others. Only a shot to the temple can cut this knot... (P. Todorovsky).

You know, this is practically everything I found on the Internet about the content of the film. I myself saw it back in the 90s, and I don’t feel like watching it again. By the way, this is a Todorovsky family trait. So I look at the list of films, first one, then another. I even had a chance to watch some, but I honestly don’t want to do it again. And out of my own impulse, I have no desire to get acquainted with the rest of the paintings. There has already been a persistent feeling of rejection.

And here's another quote:

— Pyotr Efimovich, why in your film “Anchor, more anchor!” is the Soviet army shown from a critical point of view?
– The secular army is shown very well. I lived in these military towns after the war, I told only a small part of this closed life in military towns, in the taiga. And I thought when I started the picture, where will I now find the adobe one-story houses where the officers’ wives and children lived. Easily. It turned out that I found such a town near Moscow. There is no school there, children are transported to school 15 kilometers away, a small store is open twice a week, there is water in the tap in the yard, the club does not work. In this situation, if you read Kuprin, who has a wonderful story “The Duel,” this is a story about life. They are wonderful people, they just found themselves in a situation where they have nowhere to go. Therefore, we will not hide the fact that there is drinking, and, of course, where men and women are present, there is always passion and facial expressions. It simply cannot happen without this.
We got used to it in Soviet times, forgive me, that the wife never cheats, the officer never drinks, everything is buttoned up to the last button. The film received the main prize at the All-Russian festival, at the World festival in Tokyo, actress Yakovleva received “Nika” for best actress. So the picture found both its viewer and its admirers, although, of course, the military stood on end. You know, the women, the wives of these officers, where we filmed, complained about this life and cursed the minute when they married the officers. Speaking seriously, there are a lot of problems in the army, and they are talking about it loudly now.

Yep, a film by P.E. Todorovsky about the events immediately (immediately!) after the war. Some units are still fighting the Japanese in China. Half of the country's housing stock has been destroyed. The creation of an atomic shield is proceeding at an intensive pace.

And in some wilderness, in a military town, surrounded by trophy clothes, former front-line soldiers are miraculously decomposing morally, but in this they are terribly hindered by evil, despicable special officers... And the good, very good hero V. Gaft does not even think about the fate of his family (his wife and two children) hanging around in a destroyed country. He has no time to be scared - a love affair has happened to him. And there is no special concern for the team entrusted to him, which he must lead/command/organize life. Some people he came across were wrong, ...wrong (well, as usual), ...probably ungrateful.

The hero’s failure also lay in the fact that at that moment, from that wilderness, like Coriolanus, there was nowhere to escape and no one to escape from this damned people. I had to take my own life, on my own, and not particularly heroically...

I am retelling this so angrily because my memory for this film is shaky, maybe even out of indignation and my mind is not sound. This film surprised me at the time. Now I remembered about him again and was even more surprised. But I won’t watch it again, you won’t force me... Although, I think I’ve already talked about this... It’s a memory...

And memory suggests that Todorovsky could make such a film only counting on the lack of personal memory of that time or the unconsciousness of the audience. After all, even now, even another generation can compare and get an idea of ​​the era from the already classic film by S. Bondarchuk “The Fate of a Man” of 1959.

Coriolanus was last modified: April 28th, 2017 by Natali

The story of Coriolanus is largely legendary. However, you can try to select the most important thing from it and add what is similar to historical facts.

Gnaeus Marcius, who came from a noble patrician family, was already distinguished by courage and courage in his young years. They say that he took part in and fought bravely in the Battle of Lake Regil. In front of the dictator Postumius, he covered with his shield a citizen who had fallen near him and chopped up the attacking enemy, for which he was awarded an oak wreath. From the moment he received this distinction, the ambitious young man began to try to live up to the expectations placed on him, and added feat to feat, booty to booty.

In 493 BC, when Spurius Cassius made an alliance with the Latins, the Romans, under the leadership of the consul Postumius Cominius, camped in front of the city of Corioli. The Volscians from Antium came to the aid of the city and attacked the Romans, and on the other side a sally was made by the inhabitants of Corioli. Marcius, with his detachment, threw them back into the city and himself invaded it after those who fled. The flames that engulfed the burning houses signaled to the rest of the Roman army that Marcius had invaded the city. She followed him, occupied and plundered Corioli, and Marcius with a detachment of volunteers immediately returned to another part of the Roman army, which was fighting the Volscians from Antium. And here the Romans owed their victory to his irresistible courage. As a reward for his exploits, he received from the consul a horse with magnificent harness and permission to choose for himself from the rich booty, which consisted of gold, horses and people, ten times more than he would have had under the usual division into equal parts. Marcius chose only one prisoner, to whom he immediately gave freedom. This act aroused universal approval, and the consul Cominius gave him the honorable name Coriolanus.

Marcius Coriolanus shows all this only from the good side. But in private life he behaved extremely proudly and arrogantly, especially regarding the plebeians, towards whom he showed hatred and contempt. It was intolerable to his aristocratic pride to see how this rude crowd, created for obedience, dared to rebel and, by going to the Sacred Mountain, force the patricians to establish the office of tribunes. In the year following the conquest of Corioli, he became a candidate for the post of consul. His military merits gave him the right to such honor, but his proud, harsh behavior during the elections alienated the people from him and the election did not take place. Coriolanus perceived this failure as a grave insult, and the patrician youth, who looked at him as their leader, fanned his indignation even more.

Just this year a severe famine occurred, from which the poor class of the people suffered severely. To ease the situation, the Senate purchased grain from different parts of Italy, and one of the Sicilian tyrants even sent a large amount of wheat as a gift. The people hoped for a cheap sale of bread and even a free distribution of it. But when meetings began in the Senate on how to release grain to the people, Coriolanus made a sharp speech, recalling the disobedience of the plebeians to the law, and demanded that grain be sold at the same high prices as before. If the plebeians want low prices, let them renounce their demanded rights and agree to the abolition of the tribunician position.

When the speech of Coriolanus became known to the people who found themselves before the curia, he became so furious that he would certainly have killed the speaker as he left the curia, if the tribunes had not demanded him to answer in the face of the plebeian community. During the time remaining until the day of trial, the patricians used all means to change the mood of the people - threats, requests and promises. And they really managed to win over quite a significant part of the plebeians to the side of Coriolanus. Coriolanus again ruined the whole matter with his arrogance, ridicule and sarcastic speeches regarding the tribunes and the court. Thus a new decision was made - to subject him to lifelong exile.

Coriolanus went to the Volscians full of gloomy thoughts of revenge. In the city of the Volscians, Antium, there lived a noble man, Tullius, who, thanks to his wealth and courage, enjoyed royal honor. Coriolanus knew that Tullius hated him more than all the other Romans, since during the war they often measured their strength. It was to this man’s house that the exile Marcius appeared one evening. Unrecognized by anyone, with his head covered, he sat silently by the fireplace. Tullius, called by the servant, asked him who he was and why he had come. Then Marcius opened his face and extended his hand to the enemy of the Romans in a joint fight against the hated city. Tullius gladly showed hospitality to his recent enemy, and both began to think about ways to once again raise the Volscians to war with Rome, despite the two-year truce.

Tullius undertook to renew the war with the help of cunning. It was at this time that the Romans were preparing to celebrate the great games and invited their neighbors to this celebration. A large number of Volscians went to Rome. Among them was Tullius. But, before the games began, Tullius, by agreement with Coriolanus, went to the consuls and expressed suspicion that the Volscians intended to attack the Romans during the festival and set fire to the city. Frightened by this news, the consuls ordered all Volscians to leave the city before sunset. Indignant at this insulting order, the Volscians left Rome, and Tullius, leaving the city earlier and waiting for his compatriots on the road, inflamed their anger to such an extent that soon the whole people began to demand vengeance. Ambassadors were sent to Rome demanding the return of all cities conquered by the Romans. This demand amounted to a declaration of war. The Romans replied: “If the Volscians are the first to draw a sword, the Romans will be the last to sheathe it.”. The Volscians chose Tullius and Coriolanus as their leaders.

Tullius remained to guard the cities of the Volscians, and Coriolanus moved against Rome and the Latin cities allied with it. He first approached the Roman colony of Circe and took it. In a short time, he conquered 12 Latin cities. And so he stopped with his victorious army at the Cilia ditch, 5 thousand steps from Rome. Rome saw itself in the most helpless state - internal strife weakened its strength, and there was nothing to count on for the help of Latin cities. Attempts to gather an army were unsuccessful, and at this time Marcius’ soldiers plundered and devastated the fields outside the city gates. At the same time, they did not touch the lands that belonged to the patricians, either because Marcius wanted to take out his hatred on the plebeians, or because he wanted to further strengthen hostile relations between the classes.

Both goals were achieved - the plebeians suspected the patricians of an agreement with Coriolanus and refused to enroll in the army. In such a situation, the Senate had no choice but to send an embassy to Coriolanus with a proposal for reconciliation and return to the fatherland. For this purpose, five senators were sent to the enemy camp. They were personal friends of Coriolanus and hoped for a warm welcome. But Marcius received them proudly and sternly and responded to their peace-loving speeches that he was here not on his own behalf, but as the leader of the Volscians; that there can be no talk of peace until the Romans return to the Volscians all the conquered lands with cities and grant them civil equality, which was given to the Latins. Coriolanus gave them 30 days to discuss this proposal.

After this period, the Romans sent a new embassy to ask for more lenient terms. It returned with the same failure as the first, receiving a final 10-day reprieve. Then the city priests tried to appease the cruel man - the pontifexes, flamens and ephors in festive attire went to the enemy camp, asked and begged Coriolanus to retreat and only then begin negotiations with the Romans about the affairs of the Volscians. But Marcius did not deviate from his decision. Upon the return of the priests, the Romans decided to remain quietly in the city, limiting themselves to guarding the walls and expecting help only from time and some random miracle, because there was no other means of salvation.

Women moved in sad crowds from one temple to another and prayed to the gods to eliminate the great disaster. Among them was Valeria, Publikola’s sister. On the last day of this reprieve, she, along with other noble women, lay before the altar of Jupiter Capitoline and prayed, and suddenly a happy thought flashed in her head. She got up and went with the rest of the women to Coriolanus' mother Veturia and his wife Volumnia and asked them to go to Coriolanus and beg him to turn away from the city of the threat. Veturia and Volumnia - the latter holding the hand of her two sons - moved to the camp at the head of noble Roman women. Their appearance inspired respectful compassion in the enemy. When Coriolanus heard that his mother, wife and children were among those approaching the camp, he rushed to meet them with open arms and hugged and kissed them with tears. The reproaches and pleas of his beloved mother, the silent crying of respectable women, the sight of kneeling children and his wife - all this crushed the tough stubbornness of a vengeful man. "Mother, he exclaimed, what have you done to me! I obey you, you have defeated me; but I will never return to Rome again. Preserve the fatherland in my place, since you have made a choice between Rome and your son.". Then, after talking again privately with his mother and wife, he released them and, as soon as it was dawn, led his army on the return journey.

"Volumnia, Virgilia and Coriolanus" Engraving from a painting by Gavin Hamilton

Among the Volscians, Coriolanus lived to a very old age and, as they say, often complained that for an old man exile was a great disaster. According to other legends, the Volscians killed him in indignation that he had led them away from Rome, which they already looked at as sure prey. In gratitude to the women for saving the city, the Roman Senate decided to build a temple in honor of the goddess - the patroness of women (fortuna muliebris).

The stories of Roman historians about Coriolanus differ from each other in many points, so that from this circumstance we can already conclude that they were drawn not from modern sources, but from legends. It is incredible that, given the aversion to everything foreign at that time, Coriolanus, as a foreigner, could become a commander of the Volscians. It is also incredible that they obeyed the stranger unquestioningly when he led them back from Rome. The indicated number of cities conquered during a short campaign also seems very doubtful, since at that time an entire summer campaign was usually required to take at least one fortified city. More likely is Niebuhr's assumption that Coriolanus, expelled by the Romans, was not the commander of the Volscians, but the leader of several detachments of the same expelled and fled Romans, reinforced by adventurers greedy for prey. With these troops, he could devastate Roman possessions and even threaten the capital, but retreat thanks to the pleas of his mother.

When famine began in Rome the following year, grain arrived from Sicily and Coriolanus, who became the head of the patrician party, offered to sell it at low prices if the plebeians refused tribunician protection. The tribunes summoned him to court, and this was the first time a patrician was summoned to a court of plebeians. According to Livy, Coriolanus did not appear at the trial, but went into voluntary exile to the Volscians and began to look for a reason for war with Rome. According to Dionysius, Coriolanus was present at the trial, successfully defended himself, but was still convicted, since the fact of appropriation of military booty captured during the campaign against the Anciate Volscians was revealed. Having led the Volscians, together with the Volscian aristocrat Tullus Aufidius, who had gathered at the Ferentin spring, Coriolanus led their army to Rome, and only the embassy of women led by the wife and mother of Coriolanus touched his heart, and he led the Volscians away from the city, for which he was killed by them as a traitor, and in Rome, patrician women mourned him for a year. Livy, citing Fabius Pictor, reports that Coriolanus lived to a ripe old age. This unorthodox version was also known to Cicero.

According to Dionysius, Coriolanus is the commander of a plebeian militia that joined the army of the patricians and their clients. On the one hand, Coriolanus is depicted as popular among the plebeians due to his military exploits; on the other hand, it was the plebs who did not allow Coriolanus to the consular post, although he was supported by the patricians. Further, he already acts as an irreconcilable enemy of the plebeians, seeking to deprive them of protection from the tribunes of the people. Apparently, two different editions of this saga have been preserved in Dionysius’ narrative. In the first, Coriolanus is presented as a plebeian military leader, the second seeks to turn him into a patrician, militantly defending the privileges of his class.

Later researchers repeatedly turned to the analysis of the legend, especially when it came to criticizing the Roman tradition in order to identify reliable parts in it. Mommsen denied the historical basis of the legend. However, the dating of the legend is 493 BC. e. , when the Treaty of Cassius was concluded, reveals the real connection of events: Coriolanus’s campaign against Rome ended with the conclusion of an equal treaty with the Latins, which they subsequently tried so carefully to hide.

William Shakespeare wrote the tragedy “Coriolanus” based on the plot of the legend, and in 2011 a film was made based on it, directed by Ralph Fiennes.

Notes

Literature

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus” is in other dictionaries:

- (Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus), according to ancient Roman legend, a patrician and commander who commanded the troops during the capture of the Volscian city of Coriol in 493 BC. e. (hence his nickname). Pursued by the tribunes for attempting to deprive the plebeians of their political rights,... ...

Gnaeus see Coriolanus, Gnaeus Marcius...

Coriolanus, Gnaeus Marcius- Roman commander who conquered in 493 BC. e. Volcan city of Corioli, but failed in the elections when trying to become consul due to his contempt for the plebeians. He fled to the Volscians, with whom he opposed Rome. Only the persuasion of his mother... ... Ancient world. Dictionary-reference book.

Gnaeus: Gnaeus Arulenus Caelius Sabinus, Roman lawyer, consul of 69. Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus: Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus (consul 192 BC) Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus (consul suffect 162 BC) Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus (consul 122 BC ... Wikipedia

Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus Roman commander "Coriolanus" Shakespeare's tragedy "Coriolanus" Beethoven's overture in C major Op. 62 to the tragedy of the same name Heinrich Joseph Collina ... Wikipedia

GNAEUS Marcius (Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus) or Gaius Marcius, legendary hero of Rome. He became famous for the capture of the Volscian city of Coriola, which is how he received his nickname. He stood at the head of the aristocratic party, tried to abolish the position of the plebeians... ... Collier's Encyclopedia

Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus, Roman general. "Coriolanus" tragedy by Shakespeare. "Coriolanus" tragedy by Heinrich Joseph Collina. Coriolanus (overture) Beethoven's overture in C minor Op. 62 to the tragedy of the same name by Heinrich Joseph Collina. "Coriolanus" ... ... Wikipedia

Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus, according to ancient Roman legend, was a patrician and commander who commanded the troops during the capture of the Volscian city of Coriol in 493 BC. e. (hence his nickname). Persecuted by the tribunes for trying to deprive the plebeians of their... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Gnaeus Marcius (Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus) was a legendary representative of the plebeian family of Marcius, portrayed by senior annalists as a patrician and consul in command of Rome. troops during the capture of Coriol in 493 BC. e. Pursued by the stands for... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia

Coriolanus- Gnaeus Marcius, legendary commander and hero of ancient Rome. history, according to legend, conquered in 493 BC. e. The Volsky city of Corioli, for which it received the nickname K. In 491 BC. e. fought against the plebeians, who then achieved his expulsion... ... Dictionary of Antiquity